Test Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike on North Korea

re #3 whose mines? We agreed to remove our nukes so would it be NK's?

re #8 all missles can be called nuclear missles. Sure the test missle could be fitted with a nucler payload but it wasn't.

Perception - what evidence do you have that the Chinese GOVERNMENT is killing girl babies? My understanding of this is that it is the traditional desire for Chinese people to have sons that leads them to kill unwanted girl babies and to abort female foetuses. (In fact, there has begun to be a problem with Chinese gangs kidnapping women for "brides" - this story was actually running in the Chinese media when a friend of mine was there last year.)

You seem to believe that there is some plot to create armies of unwanted Chinese men to expend in wars - this is a pretty "out there" position if that is what you are saying - can you clarify and give some reasons for this belief - if I am right?

Can someone tell me if there are actually nuclear MINES?! Whether in the DMZ or anywhere?!

I don't begin to know, Deb, but I'm confident in saying "NO". What on earth would be the purpose, what would one cost, and where could I get one?

I hope you are right Roger -Tommy mentioned it and nobody really challenged it.

Dlowan

If you will accept articles written and published on the web as "Proof" then try this link first then just dial in "Chinese birth control" OR "Chinese one child policy" on Google and read to your hearts content---if you can stomach it.

http://www.nrlc.org/news/2002/NRL07/china1.htm

Re: the nuclear mines in the DMZ---I don't know ---it was news to me.

Bunny,

1. No, there are no nuclear mines anywhere in the world.

2. You are correct about the female infantcide in China. The government itself punishes any infanctcide as murder, but people continue to "make room" for a male birth. Chinese population control has tended to be somewhat effective in urban areas where government control is strongest. In the countryside, it is believed that population control measures have been much less effective. Whether a government sponsored policy or not, female infantcide has altered the sexual balance in Chinese population over the last twenty years. So far the imbalance hasn't been too extreme, but each cohort is a little more out of balance. The government has kept a lot of those excess males in the military where they can better be controlled. It is scary to think of there being a heavily armed army of sexually deprived young men sitting around waiting for something to happen. So long as the government and army can maintain discipline, there isn't much to fear. However, if the discipline ever slips, or if the government feels the need to divert Chinese unrest neighbors have a right to be nervous. If all us interfering, imperialist Americans go home who will they expect to pull the chestnuts out of the fire?

The link I provided above would contradict your claim that no significant embalance exists----

There are currently 70 million more men than women in China today.

I guess that's not significant)))))

Of course it's significant if you are one of those finding it difficult to get a date. On the other hand, 70 million out of a population well over one billion, and scattered across all age cohorts is more alarming than it is currently significant. It is the trend that is disturbing, and each year the imbalance within the 15-25 year old cohort gets larger.

China is riding the tiger with no way of safely getting off. The population continues to grow at an alarming rate, while available resources continue to diminish. Demand increases, and the capability of meeting even the most basic demands more diffcult. China has not been traditionally an expansionist power, but that may change. I believe that the fate of the DPRK is of only passing interest to China at the moment. If not directly threatened, or challenged, I believe that conflict on the penninsula is of little concern to China. Would they like America to retreat across the Pacific? Betcha boots.

It appears that Kim will be permitted to enlarge his nuclear program. He has won his point, will be encouraged to up his demands, and will be a more dangerous adversary later. We will probably avoid shooting for awhile longer, but the probabilities of massive casulties later among both UN/US forces and the civilian populations of northeast Asia will be much, much greater. Oh well, on the upside my son may be retired before the shooting starts and it will be someother's son who has to pay for our lack of will today.

have I missed something? has the US said yep, go ahead and build more bombs?

Population of China 1.3 billion, 70 million would be 5.4%. Not significant especially seeing as nature already produces more males than females; ie, men go to war, men work at dangerous jobs, men are aggressive and fight in bars - etc.

The government does not create infanticide, it has a policy that leads to infanticide.

dlowan, it has said test them!

The Doctrine Of A Pre-Emptive Strike Against North Korea
Forgive me if I reply to various posts with a broad brush, so to speak.

1. As I said earlier, China suffers from the paranoia of a young (Communist) Nation finding its feet in a different and fast developing world. It came to power in l949 after being raped over the previous 150 years by the British, other European Countries and the United States, and latterly by the Japanese. No matter what its politics (Imperial China equals Communist China) China has always been introverted and suspicious of "foreign devils".

2. The spread of Communism or the doctrine of Communism means nothing to the Chinese. The Chinese hierarchy had to control billions of Chinese subjects, they weren't going to allow a return to the loose and changing allegiences of the warlords during the Imperium.

3. What China is to the Eastern Hemisphere, the United States is to the West. Indeed, the US has suffered it's own paranoia. Example: McCarthyism. But more pointedly, that which I experienced at first hand.
During the construction of the HongKong Hilton, and just prior to it's official opening, it was discovered that several of the Public Rooms of this hotel were panelled with timber imported from Communist China. On the instructions of the US Charge d'Affaires, presumably on orders from the State Department, all that panelling was torn out and replaced by timber imported from Indonesia. No matter what type of Government rules in China, or for the matter of that, North Korea, the Asian mindset will never be fully understood by Occidentals.

4. To reiterate, China and North Korea no matter what their hue, will alwys be a mystery to the Westerner.

5. Someone mentioned about a United Arabia. I don't think it will happen in the forseeable future. It has been tried in the past with Egypt and Syria. Jordan will always be suspicious and afraid of its more powerful neighbours and will always fence-sit. The different Arab Countries, no matter how large, are divided by Islam and they, the different Arab Tribes, still maintain a that introverted tribal outlook - "the friend of my enemy is my enemy". Comparing the Iraqi situation with that of North Korea is not realistic - Saddam Hussein is not COMPLETELY mad - Kim Il Jong couldn't care less - he will fight.

6. The issue of nuclear mines. It was and is common knowledge that Nuclear Mines were in the armoury of NATO during the Cold War - whether they still are is unknown.

7. Unfortunately I cannot provide the link showing a photograph in the the British broadsheet, "The Daily Telegraph" of the body of an infant girl lying in the gutter of a Chinese City, which was published about three months ago

Bunny,

A number of years ago North Korea, DPRK, threatened to use fuel rods from a nuclear power to construct nuclear bombs in violation of its nuclear non-proliferation agreements. The United States at the time was ready to pre-emptively destroy the DPRK capability, but at the last moment agreed to supply many of the North Koreans needs if they would desist. A small number of international inspectors (3, I believe), were to monitor the situation. Almost immediately the DPRK was in violation of the agreements, but nothing was done. The DPRK nuclear program continued secretly, and eventually they produced several kiloton range nuclear weapons. Many in the intelligence field "knew" the the DPRK had a small nuclear capability, but real information was small. DPRK has always been a difficult target for intelligence gathering, and the US government placed far greater reliance on Elint and Satelite intelligence systems.

In the late 90's North Korea was on the verge of collapse. The population was literally starving to death, and the economy was a disaster. There wasn't enough petrol to get through what looked like a very bad winter. The international community, especially the United States and South Korea, supplied huge economic support and food to prop up Kim Jong-Il's regime. The DPRK channeled the relief food and fuel supplies first to it's million man army, of which between 60 and 70% are dug in along the DMZ (39th parallel). Once the army was supplied, enough aid did reach the civilian population to save many lives. In the several years since that time, the DPRK has recovered much of its strength, though conditions in the North are still marginal. As conditions have improved, so have the number of DPRK violations to its agreements.

Finally, the U.S. cut off further relief to the North, and the DPRK announced that it had acquired nuclear weapons and that it was reactivating its nuclear program. They have kicked out the inspectors and begun pulling the fuel rods. Within 90 days they will begin processing nuclear waste into bomb grade materials. Within one year the DPRK will be able to produce at least three more warheads. That is their stated intention. If nothing is done to stop them, they will build more bombs.

For what purpose does the DPRK need 2+ atom bombs, and a million man army poised within fifty miles of the DMZ? Kim Jong-Il has two goals: First, remain in power, and Second, to reunify the Korean Penninsula under DPRK rule. He will do anything to achieve those ends. The UN/United States presence in South Korea makes reunification iimpossible and his regime is largely proped up by the notion that Kim is the nation's only hope to reunify North and South.

North Korea during Kim's father's reign did come South and drove a poorly prepared American occupation force to the Pusan perimeter. After landing at Inchon, MacArthur drove the North Koreans back to the Yalu River, the very border of Communist China. China, afraid that the Americans intended to push all the way to Peking, intervened. An armistice and a DMZ along the 39th parallel was arranged and the guns went silent. The Korean War is now 50 years old, and is still unresolved.

Why has the war gone unresolved? North Korea has from the beginning adopted one of the most brutal and difficult negotiating strategies. They are unwilling to even talk about most important elements needed to find some agreement, and will throw ashtrays across the room and storm out of negotiating meetings over trivialities. When pushed to the wall, they will make some minor concession and then reneg on the deal. Even when you catch them in lies and violations, they accuse you of being the bad guy for catching them. They seldom back down unless faced with real, credible force. If they press a point and are not blocked, they up the ante and demand more. They threaten violence, and regard a frown on our side of the table as naked aggression.

Kim doesn't want war, he knows he would lose. Kim wants to win by convincing the world and the American public that no US soldier should ever die on the Korean Penninsula.

Asherman

Thanks for the historical picture and analysis. IT would seem that you favor elimination of this problem as I do, sooner rather than later. I know that you and I will never agree on tactics but I would like to hear your plan How do you propose to ensure quick victory without ever gambling on losing the people of Seoul to the Artillery of the north? What is your plan step by step? Also would you agree that we need to trick them into attacking so that the world,and more importantly China, sees them as the aggressor and not us.?

Asherman, I concur. I had spent some time composing a response rendered superfluous by your earlier essay to the bunny. The issue long has been clear to me, and is as you describe it.



timber

I thought I made that clear before, however.

1. Bring all US/ROK/UN forces in theater to a high state of alert.

2. Begin moving the Marine Division at Okinawa toward Korea. This removes one of the best nuclear targets for the DPRK, and puts them into position for effective use if an actual shooting conflict develops.

3. Bring at least one, two would be better, carrier task force(s) into theater.

4. Issue an ultimatum to the the DPRK that to shut down their nuclear program and processing processes within a very short time, or we will take out the nuclear program infrastructure.

5. Kim, faced with the real threat of conflict, will either back-down and remove the casas belli, or he will not.

6. If the DPRK doesn't not comply then, we take out the offending plant using stealth bombers, and SLBMs. Then we wait, the whole world will wait to see what happens next.

7. Kim has two choices, backdown or fight. He knows in a fight he will lose, so he probably would backdown and return to the negotiating table chastened, but unbowed. If he bends, we win.

8. If the DPRK decides to fight, ROK/US/UN forces will be in place and ready to recieve the attack. The North would probably open with artillery bombardment of Seoul. I have relatives on the North bank of the Han, and hope that they could get south of the river. The artillery bombardment might do considerable damage, but nothing like "vaporising" the city. ROK forces would responde with counter battery fire, and US air craft would begin taking air superiority. The DPRK army would advance South of the DMZ into already established kill zones that have been pre-registered for Allied artillery. North Korean sappers would appear in and around Seoul and do their damndest to confuse and snarl Allied defensive effort.

Some evacuation of civilian personnel might be attempted, but that will be almost totally counter-productive. Allied forces will need all transportation to respond northward, just as a flood of refugees will clog the roads southward. There will be civilian casualties from both enemy and friendly fire.

I believe that the North Korean army can be held in place for at least a week. ROK forces are strong and well led, but the average ROK soldier is the same kid who demonstrates in the streets for improved relations with the North. UN forces, mostly the US, can accomplish pinning the assault down. The North Korean army is large and tough, but they have been in garrison for a very long time, and might not be as eager to charge into our artillery and aerial bombardment as some believe. I also believe that the North Koreans are not as well trained as they would have to be to fully take advantage of the situation. Once those tanks start rolling out into the real world and problems start happening, will the average North Korean regiment be able to keep the pressure on? It is the mission of the Allied air forces to keep the North Koreans "buttoned up".

When the shooting starts, I want a Marine amphibious landing on the Northern coast far from the bulk of Kim's army. The marines should encounter relatively light resistance, because most of the enemies best are concentrated down on the DMZ, where everything is pointed south. The Marines should drive to Pyong-yang quickly. I suspect that the capitol will fall quickly, and Kim will surrender. In the event that I'm over estimating the ability of the Corps (Ha), a reserve force would secure the beachhead for evacuation if absolutely necessary. The marine line of attack on Pyon-Yang will reduce the pressure south of the DMZ and sow confusion within the North Korean command structure. Marine and Naval air assets will act in support, and to crush any counter attack attempted from the south. Once pyong-Yang is secured, the marines would hook southward along the main road to the DMZ. Their mission then becomes two fold: 1. Mop up those who refuse to surrender, and 2. take charge of the large number of POWs that can be expected.

9. The marine advance should be parallel to the Chinese border, and not threatening as it was fifty years ago. I don't like leaving the left flank and later rear open, but there isn't much that can be done. If the Chinese intervene, it would be early in the operation and the marines could be withdrawn by the sea route the came in on. I would like the fleet disbursed if possible to avoid giving a desperate regime a target for a nuclear strike.

10. Would the DPRK strike Tokyo? I don't think so, but we can't really be sure of what Kim might do in desperation. Nuclear strike on Seoul? Unlikely. Nuclear strike on US soil, again unlikely and if attempted probably not truely effective. The DPRK delivery systems aren't yet quite up to long-range precision and we can't even be sure how well their nuclear devices will work when actually used. They haven't tested their weapons, so they may be theoretically dangerous, but until you push the button a lot can go wrong. I don't want them to get any better than they are now.

11. By defeating the DPRK, the Korean War can be ended and Allied forces reduced to relatively low levels. A unified Korea with a stable government is in everyone's best interests, so I suspect the Chinese would be happy as pie with the result.

12. What would this sceneario cost? If the DPRK backs down early in the process, we will have a return to the status quo ante, EXCPT the North Korean nuclear threat will go away for a long time. It costs us nothing, and we would have everything to gain. If Kim chooses war, or miscalculates, there will be some pretty hefty damage to South Korea in places for a hundred miles or so south of the DMZ. Seoul will be damaged, and perhaps the city of north of the Han might be occupied for a short time. Civilian casualties will be heavy around Seoul, perhaps twenty thousand, elsewhere the civilian losses will be more modest. US casualties will vary. The air forces components shouldn't lose anyone, but we need to expect some aircraft lost to AA fire. ROK losses may be heavy in repulsing the initial attack, and ROK Divisions may not remain effective for more than a few weeks. US/UN Forces south of the DMZ may suffer some losses, but I think measured in the hundreds rather than thousands. The marine component may see 10% casualties in some units, but most should be less. I think we are talking around five to ten thousand allied casualties.

Now I know, Perception, you think I want those casualties and glory in them. BS. I wish we could win with zero deaths, even among the enemy. The sad fact is that war kills people and destroys many useful and beautiful things. If we wait, will it be easier to resolve the situation when Kim has half a dozen nukes and has improved his technological capability to use them? If these deaths prevent a nuclear strike on any populated city, how many of those innocent lives will have been saved? The doctor who hasn't the stomach for amputation may well have a dead patient of gangerene.

Energy is at the core of the problem. DPRK simply does not possess the energy resources required to participate in contemporary civilization. China is massively engaged in addressing her own burgeoning domestic energy problems, and unlikely even to be able to provide significant assistance to DPRK.

DPRK must import petroleum to function. Russia and certain Former Soviet Republics, The OPEC Nations, and The US are just about the only folks capable of selling sufficient petroleum to power an economy. The Russians, eager to expand their petroleum export capability, stand to benefit from petroleum trade with DPRK. They are to be expected to be lobbying DPRK from such perspective, coincident with Chinese efforts and perspective previously discussed in this thread.


So far, North Korea appears to be a diplomatic matter, for all the bellicose posturing on its surface. Of course, much the same could have been, and indeed was at the time, said of Serbian Mobilization in 1914.



timber

I think Timber earlier used a poker analogy for this sitution.

Kim has raised the ante. The bet's to us. Do we fold? Do we call, and raise the ante to test whether he's bluffing? Raise the stakes, and DPRK will fold and we will win --- this hand.

Perception,

You asked if I think we need to trick the DPRK into becoming the aggressor. Nope. They are the aggressor. We need to be truthful and clear on what the consequences will be if the DPRK doesn't begin to act like a civilized nation. The time for tough talk and little action is past, and our reluctance to fight has only encouraged North Korea, and most of the nations in Southwest Asia to believe we are easy pushovers.

The Gulf War gave Saddam something to think about, but then we wimped out and have let him play his little games. If Saddam complies with the UN resolutions denying Iraq certain weapons, it will be because he is afraid of our military capability. The question in his mind today, is whether our Will is as strong as our Army.

It's a workable plan mainly because we hold all the cards----I think you are badly underestimating the civilian casualties in Seoul. According to the figures on the internet there are nearly 10,000,000 people in Seoul and you only expect to lose 20,000 or so.
If they truly have 14,000 artillery tubes aimed at the city, your estimate is not realistic. Why wouldn't you at least try to evacuate
the people before hostilities start---we control that according to your plan? That I believe in Jong's mind is his deterrent---if you take that away then surely he would know he can't win. If Seoul is like most oriental towns I've seen, it is a mass of humanity with no escape---if the entire town was ignited by the artillery using phosphorous rounds Jong could save about 10,000 rounds because the fire would burn about 7,000,000. I don't know about you but I wouldn't want 7,000,000 on my conscience--that would top what Hitler did to the jews.

You are correct about one thing---they really want to test our WILL and right now that is very much in doubt but then we as peacetime warriors aren't privy to all the factors.

An addendum here, if I may, pertinent to "Nuclear Landmines", and my opinion of that matter:


A primer on Military Mines:
http://www.ippnw.org/MineFacts.html


Land Mines are essentially Tactical Area-Denial or Channelization Remote Weapons; their purpose being to keep an enemy out of a particular area or to force his movement into a predeterimned area.

The tactical utility of a nuclear landmine would not be the equal to factors mitigating against the use of such weapons. Superior "On Demand" remote tactical effect may be acheived by nuclear projectiles launched by current conventional artillery or rocketry. The Israeli's were rumored to have developed them, though they deny it adamantly, and no credible evidence for them exists. The Soviets undoubtedly, even admitedly, researched the issue, but appear never to have entered a deployable version into production, let alone service. The French, likewise, were hinted at one time of showing some interest in the concept, but seem to have abandoned the concept.

The United States, and by extension, NATO, to my knowledge and limits of research, has never included Nuclear Landmines in any Operational Table of Organization and Equipment. Some "conjectioneering" was done in the 1950's, but saw no fruition beyond rumored "Proof of Concept". There was noticeable contemporary official reticence to discuss any non-conventional munitions, with attendant dimished public attention to the details.


Generally accepted to exist, however, though not explicity claimed, are nuclear Naval Mines. The primary focus of these devices is not Surface Ships so much as Submarines.
A deep sub-surface nuclear detonation, or pattern of near-simultaneous detonations, will severely inconvenience any submerged vessel within an appreciable area. The rationale for this is that certain more or less defined "transit routes" connected the bulk of the Soviet Submarine Fleet's Offensive Assets to areas of operation from which they could be effective against mainland North American and Western European targets. A sudden major redeployment of Soviet Subs would have been detected by "National Technical Means" almost immediately even 40 years ago. Had that ever happened, Iceland might have had a very unpleasnt time. Subsequent developments in weaponry have rendered the conjecture moot.



timber